The Individual Mandate Upheld as a Tax

I'm still trying to understand the specifics of this morning's Supreme Court decision, and taking in a lot of commentary.  One thing - and perhaps only one - is clear to me at this point.  It's been reported that Mitt Romney's campaign received $300,000 in online donations in the first hour after the decision was announced.

It's not a bad idea to donate today, especially if you feel the need to make a statement. I'm going there now to contribute my small bit and hoping that perhaps by the end of the day, they'll get a million dollars.  That should be good for at least one headline :/

Donate HERE.

 

& feel free to express your opinions, questions, comments, etc. below.

Comments

[Joel]

Great work John Roberts - you are a typical Republican Supreme Court appointee - a turncoat.

[Mannie Sherberg]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean --neither more nor less." Who knew that John Roberts was Humpty Dumpty in drag? And who imagined, upon waking up this morning, that the entire nation was about to pass through the Looking Glass? We are now a country in which any word means what some guy in a black robe chooses it to mean. Strictly speaking, it doesn't even require a knowledge of the law -- all it takes is a few hocus-pocuses and some abracadabras, and presto! -- "mandate" suddenly means "tax." I never guessed that our great, national Humpty Dumpty would turn out be the Chief Justice; I had naively assumed that John Roberts was a better man than that. But then -- being naive -- I also assumed flesh-and-blood humans could never pass through the Looking Glass. Live and learn.

[Joel]

I sense the dark shadows of the coming times.

[scp]

Great work RUTH BADER GINSBURG, great work STEPHEN BREYER, great work SONIA SOTOMAYOR, great work ELENA KAGAN -- you are typical of **DEMOCRAT** Supreme Court appointees -- infiltrators, traitors, and destroyers of the Constitution.

[scp]

Dear Americans: On this day, June 28th, 2011, you just lost your freedom. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has determined that the Congress of the United States may REQUIRE that you purchase goods or services from third parties (i.e., "health insurance"). Not from the Federal or State Governments, like an actual tax, but FROM THIRD PARTIES. And at present, if you do not do so, you will be FINED (by way of the Income Tax). IT IS NOT THIS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE LAW THAT IS SIGNIFICANT (even though it is), IT IS THE *JUDGEMENT* RENDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT IS SIGNIFICANT. We now have no way of knowing what commerce we may be "dictated" to participate in in the future. (You may not purchase from this company, but for whatever contrived reason you *must* purchase from that company; this person may purchase a car, but that person *may not*; These people may purchase meat, but for whatever contrived reason, those people *cannot*...etc.) Think like a dishonest tyrant for an hour, and you'll be able to come up with many examples of such things on your own.

[scp]

I forgot to use the word "Communist" to describe Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. And don't get me wrong, I do not give Roberts a "pass" on this--he too is guilty. Guilty.

[scp]

Given his past, in contrast with his recent positions he has taken on the Arizona decision, and on socialized medicine, I wonder what kind of pressure is being brought to bear on Chief Justice Roberts off camera. As the two parties testified before the Supreme Court, does anyone remember the weak and lame arguments made by the administration in defense of this law? and now this by Roberts? This is inconsistent with his record. Something else is going on, some other pressure is being brought to bear on Roberts "behind the scenes". His is a lifetime appointment, so he doesn't (our shouldn't) have to think like a politician. Physical threats to John Roberts or his family perhaps? I wonder. At any rate, 4 of the 5 Supreme Court justices (I think) were Democrat appointees. Don't forget.

[Mannie Sherberg]

If some creep takes a $5 handbag, sticks a Gucci label on it, and sells it for 500 bucks, he will -- if nabbed by the cops -- be hauled into court and sent to jail. But if all the creeps in Congress take a bill, mislabel it as a "mandate," and then sell it to the American people as such, they not only get away with it -- they're given sanction for what they did by the Supreme Court. The court's reasoning seems to be that the mislabelling didn't matter; the health care bill that was called a "mandate" when it should've been called a "tax" is still a health-care bill -- and that's all that counts. But shouldn't that also apply to the guy who mislabelled the handbag? After all, with a Gucci label or a "junk" label, it's still a handbag. I don't get it -- and, I suspect, neither do many of my fellow Americans. Congress and the White House plainly sold us a mislabelled product. For any ordinary person, selling a mislabelled product is a fraud and a crime. But not for the Congress or the Obama administration. At a certain level, apparently, committing fraud suddenly morphs into "doing the right thing." It's a good thing I never went to law school, because I'm just not smart enough to understand this stuff.

[scp]

...From an album called (get this)... "Revolver"(2:41) http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=ZqK97av7I3s Remember, when it was "passed" THE DEMOCRATS HAD SUPER MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS. The DEMOCRATS. The DEMOCRATS. Not "CONGRESS"--the DEMOCRATS.

[Tom Glennon]

OK, I may be, as my Grandfather used to say, "three bricks short of a hod", but the ramifications of this ruling may be well beyond what folks are discussing. If I understand the immediate impact, the Federal government can now force Americans to purchase a product from a third party, even if they don't want or need the product. Allow me to extrapolate. In your bathroom, the government already restricts the type of toilet you can buy (low flow), and the shower head you can buy (restricted flow). Can the government now force you to replace the existing toilet and shower head you now have (old style), and mandate that you replace it with an "approved" device? Can the government now mandate that you can't buy that SUV you want, and must purchase the glorified golf cart called the "Smart Car"? The relationship between the government and the citizen has now been "fundamentally transformed", just as the president promised.

[Penelope Toothman]

I am hoping for more than $1 million out of this, but that would be a very nice start. There is this bizarre "white horse" prophesy written down during the late 1800's and associated with the Mormon church. They reject it as doctrine , but still it is in their history. It goes like this... At a time when the Mormon Church is very wealthy, the constitution of the US will be hanging by a thread and a Mormon will be elected and restore the constitution. I am not a Mormon or into weird prophesies, but I certainly hope for all our sakes it comes true. All 3 branches of the government are now officially dysfunctional. Think about a real (or imagined) national emergency requiring martial law without a constitution and just Obama's executive orders. Have mercy on us.

[Yael]

Waaaahhhh.

[Tiffany Jewellery]

In addition, large The handbags spend Tiffany double C logo set with round diamonds, bright eye-catching, unique design and exquisite craft handbag just like an art, it is amazing. Two models, the same luxury, global sale.